The below average intelligence people who use the WEB are simply copying the techniques of the mainstream media. Sensationalism is first ... truth is last. Between there is bias, innuendo, and lies. The WEB just looks like today's paper! No wonder people are canceling their newspapers at the rate of 6% per year. I'm surprised circulation is dropping faster. Then again, my wife gets the paper for the Soduku , Crossword, and the Bridge Hand. I like the funnies! Don't read the sports anymore ... sports analysts are the lowest form of journalism. I can turn on ESPN, mute the volume, and watch the scores all day. The front page - the Chicago Tribune fills have of it with a useless picture or ad! Any room for words are usually filled with biased innuendo, stupid no depth reporting, or the "Miracle Saves Miners" headline. So people on the WEB are just doing the same thing news media types have been doing for years. With the advent of spell and grammar checkers, everybody has the same skills as a journalist; the skills are automated into the software you use. Truth, in-depth analysis, unbiased wording, level headed thinking are all characteristics not found in the media.
- 1
- 2
The Flip Side of Internet Fame
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Regulators find sites like JuicyCampus hard to control. Laws on free speech and defamation vary widely between countries. In the United States, proving libel requires the victim to show that his or her persecutor intended malice, while the British system puts the burden on the defense to show that a statement is not libelous (making it much easier to prosecute). A 1996 U.S. law—Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—specifically protects the operators of Web sites from liability for the speech of their users. As long as the host of a site doesn't post or edit content, it has no liability. (If AOL, say, were held responsible for every poster, it would quickly go out of business.)
So, then, what's to stop a person from posting whatever he wants about you, if he can do so anonymously and suffer no repercussions? For people who use blogs and social-networking sites like diaries, putting their personal information out there for the world to see, this presents a serious risk. "I think young people are seduced by the citizen-media notion of the Internet: that everyone can have their minutes of fame," says Barry Schuler, the former CEO of AOL who is now the coproducer of a new movie, "Look," about public video surveillance. "But they're also putting themselves out there—forever."
Shaming victims, meanwhile, have little legal recourse. Identifying posters often means having to subpoena an anonymous IP address. But that could lead nowhere. Many people share IP addresses on college networks or Wi-Fi hotspots, and many Web sites hide individual addresses. Even if a victim identifies the defamer, bloggers aren't usually rich enough to pay big damage awards. Legal action may only increase publicity—the last thing a shaming victim wants. "The law can only do so much," warns Solove.
Once unsavory information is posted, it's almost impossible to retrieve. The family of the "Star Wars Kid," who spent time in therapy as a result of his ordeal, filed suit against the students who uploaded his video, and settled out of court. But dozens of versions of his video are still widely available, all over the Net. One of the bad boyfriends featured on Don'tDateHimGirl.com also sued, but his case was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. The accused rapist at Lewis & Clark has also hired lawyers. But Google his name today, and the first entry has the word "rapist" in its title. If the "Star Wars Kid" has anything to teach us, it's that shame, like the force, will always be with you.
© 2008
- 1
- 2
Discuss